Wednesday 22nd November 2017

A home from home
Forum rules
Welcome to FTN. New posters are welcome to join the conversation. You can follow us on Twitter @FlythenestHaven You are responsible for the content you post. This is a public forum. Treat it as if you are speaking in a crowded room. Site admin and Moderators are volunteers who will respond as quickly as they are able to when made aware of any complaints. Please do not post copyrighted material without the original authors permission.
User avatar
refitman
Site Admin
Posts: 7692
Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 7:22 pm
Location: Wombwell, United Kingdom

Wednesday 22nd November 2017

Post by refitman »

Morning all.
PorFavor
Prime Minister
Posts: 15167
Joined: Tue 26 Aug, 2014 12:18 pm

Re: Wednesday 22nd November 2017

Post by PorFavor »

Good morfternoon.
PorFavor
Prime Minister
Posts: 15167
Joined: Tue 26 Aug, 2014 12:18 pm

Re: Wednesday 22nd November 2017

Post by PorFavor »

"Karl Marx, Jeremy Corbyn, all property is theft,". Ah, it's so good to wake up to a Dominic Raab interview.
User avatar
Willow904
Prime Minister
Posts: 7220
Joined: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 2:40 pm

Re: Wednesday 22nd November 2017

Post by Willow904 »

https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... de-to-2020" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Public services face real-terms spending cuts of up to 40% in decade to 2020
Osborne's legacy.
"Fall seven times, get up eight" - Japanese proverb
PaulfromYorkshire
Site Admin
Posts: 8329
Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 7:27 pm

Re: Wednesday 22nd November 2017

Post by PaulfromYorkshire »

Congratulations Angela Rayner :-)
Attachments
Screen Shot 2017-11-22 at 08.44.57.png
Screen Shot 2017-11-22 at 08.44.57.png (33.66 KiB) Viewed 14756 times
tinybgoat
Speaker of the House
Posts: 2231
Joined: Mon 23 Feb, 2015 8:23 am

Re: Wednesday 22nd November 2017

Post by tinybgoat »

Ouch!
Attachments
IMG_20171122_083159_260.jpg
IMG_20171122_083159_260.jpg (29.18 KiB) Viewed 14756 times
SpinningHugo
Prime Minister
Posts: 4211
Joined: Mon 16 Feb, 2015 1:22 pm

Re: Wednesday 22nd November 2017

Post by SpinningHugo »

Labour's not voting to stay in the Customs Union, but making a great play of their voting for the Charter of Rights (which matters hardly at all) is emblematic.

Be slightly more Remainy than the Tories, but back them on what matters.

Electorally great. Just terrible for the people Labour is supposed to represent.

Vote Green. Don't be party to it. Maugham is right.
User avatar
Willow904
Prime Minister
Posts: 7220
Joined: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 2:40 pm

Re: Wednesday 22nd November 2017

Post by Willow904 »

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/amp/ent ... 0540e0d96/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
EU Withdrawal Bill: Tory Rebels Behave Like 'Grand Old Duke Of York' After Last Minute Climbdown
'The much-lauded Rebel Tories have marched their troops up to the top of the hill and then down again.'
It's looking like the Withdrawal Bill is going to go through largely unamended. With no successful amendments to protect human rights, Labour really ought to vote against on principle, however they fear it may be spun as "blocking Brexit" and regardless of the fact that a lack of Tory rebel backbone means it will pass anyway.

And then we're on to the Lords. Perhaps principles and the best interests of the country will be bigger winners in the upper chamber, where clinging onto power isn't the overriding consideration.
"Fall seven times, get up eight" - Japanese proverb
PaulfromYorkshire
Site Admin
Posts: 8329
Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 7:27 pm

Re: Wednesday 22nd November 2017

Post by PaulfromYorkshire »

SpinningHugo wrote:Labour's not voting to stay in the Customs Union, but making a great play of their voting for the Charter of Rights (which matters hardly at all) is emblematic.

Be slightly more Remainy than the Tories, but back them on what matters.

Electorally great. Just terrible for the people Labour is supposed to represent.

Vote Green. Don't be party to it. Maugham is right.
Unsurprisingly, you are wilfully misrepresenting this.

Barry Gardiner has explained in great detail why Labour voted against the Ian Murray amendment. You may not agree with his analysis, but saying it was about staying in the Customs Union or not is, as you well know, unfair. I'm sure folk here would appreciate it if you engaged with the issues Gardiner raised and presented counter-arguments.

As for the Charter of Rights, the risk of defeat does seem to have pushed the Government towards some kind of changes, though this will need monitoring. So perhaps you could congratulate Labour, other parties, Ken Clarke and Dominic Grieve et al for their good work on this matter of principle.

Or has pragmatism spun back into vogue today?
HindleA
Prime Minister
Posts: 27400
Joined: Tue 26 Aug, 2014 12:40 am
Location: Three quarters way to hell

Re: Wednesday 22nd November 2017

Post by HindleA »

Morning



https://nearlylegal.co.uk/2017/11/re-cl ... ociations/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Re-classifying housing associations

Giles Peaker
frog222
Prime Minister
Posts: 5340
Joined: Sun 29 Nov, 2015 1:24 pm

Re: Wednesday 22nd November 2017

Post by frog222 »

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:Labour's not voting to stay in the Customs Union, but making a great play of their voting for the Charter of Rights (which matters hardly at all) is emblematic.

Be slightly more Remainy than the Tories, but back them on what matters.

Electorally great. Just terrible for the people Labour is supposed to represent.

Vote Green. Don't be party to it. Maugham is right.
Unsurprisingly, you are wilfully misrepresenting this.

Barry Gardiner has explained in great detail why Labour voted against the Ian Murray amendment. You may not agree with his analysis, but saying it was about staying in the Customs Union or not is, as you well know, unfair. I'm sure folk here would appreciate it if you engaged with the issues Gardiner raised and presented counter-arguments.

As for the Charter of Rights, the risk of defeat does seem to have pushed the Government towards some kind of changes, though this will need monitoring. So perhaps you could congratulate Labour, other parties, Ken Clarke and Dominic Grieve et al for their good work on this matter of principle.

Or has pragmatism spun back into vogue today?
In his Guardian article Barry Gardiner proved (I think?) that the CU and EEA routes are impossible, therefore the "bespoke deal" is the way forward .

I'm not making a book on that one, tho perhaps not completely impossible given the economic costs to the closest EU members ! :-)
HindleA
Prime Minister
Posts: 27400
Joined: Tue 26 Aug, 2014 12:40 am
Location: Three quarters way to hell

Re: Wednesday 22nd November 2017

Post by HindleA »

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... s-contract" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Hinkley Point C subsidy has dealt consumers 'a bad hand', say MPs
Government accused of failing billpayers by agreeing to fixed price for 35-year contract that will cost £30bn

http://www.parliament.uk/business/commi ... hed-17-19/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
HindleA
Prime Minister
Posts: 27400
Joined: Tue 26 Aug, 2014 12:40 am
Location: Three quarters way to hell

Re: Wednesday 22nd November 2017

Post by HindleA »

https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk ... fullreport" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Autumn Budget 2017: Background briefing
SpinningHugo
Prime Minister
Posts: 4211
Joined: Mon 16 Feb, 2015 1:22 pm

Re: Wednesday 22nd November 2017

Post by SpinningHugo »

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:Labour's not voting to stay in the Customs Union, but making a great play of their voting for the Charter of Rights (which matters hardly at all) is emblematic.

Be slightly more Remainy than the Tories, but back them on what matters.

Electorally great. Just terrible for the people Labour is supposed to represent.

Vote Green. Don't be party to it. Maugham is right.
Unsurprisingly, you are wilfully misrepresenting this.

Barry Gardiner has explained in great detail why Labour voted against the Ian Murray amendment. You may not agree with his analysis, but saying it was about staying in the Customs Union or not is, as you well know, unfair. I'm sure folk here would appreciate it if you engaged with the issues Gardiner raised and presented counter-arguments.

As for the Charter of Rights, the risk of defeat does seem to have pushed the Government towards some kind of changes, though this will need monitoring. So perhaps you could congratulate Labour, other parties, Ken Clarke and Dominic Grieve et al for their good work on this matter of principle.

Or has pragmatism spun back into vogue today?
Gardiner's views are well known. He favours Hard Brexit

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ain-europe" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Stand with the brave 29 Labour MPs who voted to stay in the Customs Union. I don't want Gardiner's Hard Brexit and nor should you if you care about the poor.

The Charter makes almost no difference, the concession none at all.
User avatar
Willow904
Prime Minister
Posts: 7220
Joined: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 2:40 pm

Re: Wednesday 22nd November 2017

Post by Willow904 »

http://ukandeu.ac.uk/eu-bill-supermaxin ... otections/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Contrary to assurances of the Government, not ‘converting’ the Charter into UK law reduces the protection of individuals’ and businesses’ rights. The Charter protects against the EU institutions and member states when they apply EU law. Because the UK will continue to apply EU law (as retained law), the repeal of the Charter will remove safeguards which otherwise apply to these rules......

....An example where of EU Charter provides more protection than the HRA with the ECHR is the right to a fair trial, including the right of access to a lawyer. This right also applies to deportation hearings under the Charter, but not under the HRA/ECHR. Other examples are the protection of personal data, same-sex marriage and employment rights.
Not converting the Charter of Fundamental rights into UK law might not appear to be a big deal in itself, but when rights are being chipped away there probably won't be any big significant acts, but more a slow eroding. The question to ask when deciding whether to take a stand on this particular potential erosion is what are the reasons being given for the necessity of not converting the Charter along with EU law. Are the reasons given valid, compelling and commensurate?
"Fall seven times, get up eight" - Japanese proverb
SpinningHugo
Prime Minister
Posts: 4211
Joined: Mon 16 Feb, 2015 1:22 pm

Re: Wednesday 22nd November 2017

Post by SpinningHugo »

Willow904 wrote:http://ukandeu.ac.uk/eu-bill-supermaxin ... otections/
Contrary to assurances of the Government, not ‘converting’ the Charter into UK law reduces the protection of individuals’ and businesses’ rights. The Charter protects against the EU institutions and member states when they apply EU law. Because the UK will continue to apply EU law (as retained law), the repeal of the Charter will remove safeguards which otherwise apply to these rules......

....An example where of EU Charter provides more protection than the HRA with the ECHR is the right to a fair trial, including the right of access to a lawyer. This right also applies to deportation hearings under the Charter, but not under the HRA/ECHR. Other examples are the protection of personal data, same-sex marriage and employment rights.
Not converting the Charter of Fundamental rights into UK law might not appear to be a big deal in itself, but when rights are being chipped away there probably won't be any big significant acts, but more a slow eroding. The question to ask when deciding whether to take a stand on this particular potential erosion is what are the reasons being given for the necessity of not converting the Charter along with EU law. Are the reasons given valid, compelling and commensurate?
Labour, rightly in my opinion, tried to opt out of the Charter.

More rights does not equate to better.

And the big point is it hardly matters relatively. Labour is using it as a squirrel to distract from its support for Hard Brexit.

Vote Green. Lucas's voting record is one I can support. Not Labour's.
User avatar
citizenJA
Prime Minister
Posts: 20648
Joined: Thu 11 Sep, 2014 12:22 pm

Re: Wednesday 22nd November 2017

Post by citizenJA »

HindleA wrote:Morning

https://nearlylegal.co.uk/2017/11/re-cl ... ociations/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Re-classifying housing associations

Giles Peaker
"Slightly under the radar (possibly), but of enormous significance, the ONS has re-classified housing associations(or private registered providers of social housing – in the new language which I can’t get used to) as private sector, and in so doing has wiped around £60billion off the public sector debt. It is this re-classification which has given Hammond room to manoeuvre in the coming budget (although the rumours are that he is going to put £5billion only, and that appears to be going towards home ownership – plus ca change), which kind of proves the value in spreadsheets and the significance of audit practices."
User avatar
citizenJA
Prime Minister
Posts: 20648
Joined: Thu 11 Sep, 2014 12:22 pm

Re: Wednesday 22nd November 2017

Post by citizenJA »

Good-morning, everyone
HindleA
Prime Minister
Posts: 27400
Joined: Tue 26 Aug, 2014 12:40 am
Location: Three quarters way to hell

Re: Wednesday 22nd November 2017

Post by HindleA »

http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com ... ve-li.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


TECHNICAL CHANGE AND HOUSE PRICES

"A team of German researchers estimate that house prices in south east England fell by a third between 1899 and 1938 – a path roughly matched in several other developed countries. In the 30s, impecunious writers and artists lived in areas of London that only oligarchs and hedge fundies can afford today.

A big reason for this fall was an improvement in public transport"
User avatar
citizenJA
Prime Minister
Posts: 20648
Joined: Thu 11 Sep, 2014 12:22 pm

Re: Wednesday 22nd November 2017

Post by citizenJA »

I could more philosophically deal with current political turmoil if I were a millionaire.
User avatar
Willow904
Prime Minister
Posts: 7220
Joined: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 2:40 pm

Re: Wednesday 22nd November 2017

Post by Willow904 »

frog222 wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:Labour's not voting to stay in the Customs Union, but making a great play of their voting for the Charter of Rights (which matters hardly at all) is emblematic.

Be slightly more Remainy than the Tories, but back them on what matters.

Electorally great. Just terrible for the people Labour is supposed to represent.

Vote Green. Don't be party to it. Maugham is right.
Unsurprisingly, you are wilfully misrepresenting this.

Barry Gardiner has explained in great detail why Labour voted against the Ian Murray amendment. You may not agree with his analysis, but saying it was about staying in the Customs Union or not is, as you well know, unfair. I'm sure folk here would appreciate it if you engaged with the issues Gardiner raised and presented counter-arguments.

As for the Charter of Rights, the risk of defeat does seem to have pushed the Government towards some kind of changes, though this will need monitoring. So perhaps you could congratulate Labour, other parties, Ken Clarke and Dominic Grieve et al for their good work on this matter of principle.

Or has pragmatism spun back into vogue today?
In his Guardian article Barry Gardiner proved (I think?) that the CU and EEA routes are impossible, therefore the "bespoke deal" is the way forward .

I'm not making a book on that one, tho perhaps not completely impossible given the economic costs to the closest EU members ! :-)
He didn't "prove" anything. He made huge, unevidenced assumptions about what all 52% of leave voters want and expect and proceeded to explain why remaining in the single market and Customs Union might not fulfil those expectations. This both ignores what remain voters might want and expect and ignores what leave voters might want and expect when the trade offs are made fully apparent. Labour should be helping the electorate make an informed choice by making those trade offs clear, not helping the hard Brexiters by only pointing out the negatives of continued single market membership and never talking about the positives. The emphasis we get from Corbyn on how it's "impossible" to stay in the single market when we leave the EU, is denying the electorate the right to decide for themselves whether or not it is desirable. Corbyn and Gardiner are entitled to say it's undesirable or that some leave voters may feel disappointed if we don't leave the SM but they're not entitled to say it's impossible (it's not) and they're not entitled to say it would go against the wishes of all 52% of leave voters if we stayed in the SM. We simply don't know that. These are the arguments that people who want a hard Brexit would make. They are far too presumptious and misleading to fairly reflect a desire to represent the democratic wishes and best interests of the electorate as a whole.

If you read Gardiner's article, you can maybe see why it's hard for anyone who wants to remain in the single market to feel like Labour are on their side.
https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ain-europe" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Having said that, Murray's amendment wasn't especially well conceived. It could have caused issues if there's no deal and the opposition has no control over that, so voting against it could be construed as pragmatism. It wasn't going to win Tory rebel support, and voting against it doesn't prevent an eventual choice to remain in the single market, so it's not really very significant in the wider scheme of things.
Last edited by Willow904 on Wed 22 Nov, 2017 10:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Fall seven times, get up eight" - Japanese proverb
HindleA
Prime Minister
Posts: 27400
Joined: Tue 26 Aug, 2014 12:40 am
Location: Three quarters way to hell

Re: Wednesday 22nd November 2017

Post by HindleA »

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liv ... d-13935601" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Permanent tribute to Hillsborough survivors to be unveiled in Liverpool this weekend

Commemorative plaque donated in memory of late campaigning mum Anne Williams
SpinningHugo
Prime Minister
Posts: 4211
Joined: Mon 16 Feb, 2015 1:22 pm

Re: Wednesday 22nd November 2017

Post by SpinningHugo »

Gardiner's arguments prove no such thing. If they came out of the mouth of Fox or IDS (and they do) you wouldn't accept them.

I agree with Willow, save that I can't any longer see how anyone who wants us to stay in the single market and/or the Customs Union is prepared to give Labour a pass any longer.

Don't vote for a Hard Brexit party.
User avatar
Willow904
Prime Minister
Posts: 7220
Joined: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 2:40 pm

Re: Wednesday 22nd November 2017

Post by Willow904 »

SpinningHugo wrote:
Willow904 wrote:http://ukandeu.ac.uk/eu-bill-supermaxin ... otections/
Contrary to assurances of the Government, not ‘converting’ the Charter into UK law reduces the protection of individuals’ and businesses’ rights. The Charter protects against the EU institutions and member states when they apply EU law. Because the UK will continue to apply EU law (as retained law), the repeal of the Charter will remove safeguards which otherwise apply to these rules......

....An example where of EU Charter provides more protection than the HRA with the ECHR is the right to a fair trial, including the right of access to a lawyer. This right also applies to deportation hearings under the Charter, but not under the HRA/ECHR. Other examples are the protection of personal data, same-sex marriage and employment rights.
Not converting the Charter of Fundamental rights into UK law might not appear to be a big deal in itself, but when rights are being chipped away there probably won't be any big significant acts, but more a slow eroding. The question to ask when deciding whether to take a stand on this particular potential erosion is what are the reasons being given for the necessity of not converting the Charter along with EU law. Are the reasons given valid, compelling and commensurate?
Labour, rightly in my opinion, tried to opt out of the Charter.

More rights does not equate to better.

And the big point is it hardly matters relatively. Labour is using it as a squirrel to distract from its support for Hard Brexit.

Vote Green. Lucas's voting record is one I can support. Not Labour's.
What precisely are the advantages of not converting the Charter to UK law, though? You don't answer the question despite the fact that answering the question would be the most powerful way of making your (and the Tory government's) point.
"Fall seven times, get up eight" - Japanese proverb
PaulfromYorkshire
Site Admin
Posts: 8329
Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 7:27 pm

Re: Wednesday 22nd November 2017

Post by PaulfromYorkshire »

Willow904 wrote:
frog222 wrote: In his Guardian article Barry Gardiner proved (I think?) that the CU and EEA routes are impossible, therefore the "bespoke deal" is the way forward .

I'm not making a book on that one, tho perhaps not completely impossible given the economic costs to the closest EU members ! :-)
He didn't "prove" anything. He made huge, unevidenced assumptions about what all 52% of leave voters want and expect and proceeded to explain why remaining in the single market and Customs Union might not fulfil those expectations. This both ignores what remain voters might want and expect and ignores what leave voters might want and expect when the trade offs are made fully apparent. Labour should be helping the electorate make an informed choice by making those trade offs clear, not helping the hard Brexiters by only pointing out the negatives of continued single market membership and never talking about the positives. The emphasis we get from Corbyn on how it's "impossible" to stay in the single market when we leave the EU, is denying the electorate the right to decide for themselves whether or not it is desirable. Corbyn and Gardiner are entitled to say it's undesirable or that some leave voters may feel disappointed if we don't leave the SM but they're not entitled to say it's impossible (it's not) and they're not entitled to say it would go against the wishes of all 52% of leave voters if we stayed in the SM. We simply don't know that. These are the arguments that people who want a hard Brexit would make. They are far too presumptious and misleading to fairly reflect a desire to represent the democratic wishes and best interests of the electorate as a whole.

If you read Gardiner's article, you can maybe see why it's hard for anyone who wants to remain in the single market to feel like Labour are on their side.
https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ain-europe" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Having said that, Murray's amendment wasn't especially well conceived. It could have caused issues if there's no deal and the opposition has no control over that, so voting against it could be construed as pragmatism. It wasn't going to win Tory rebel support, and voting against it doesn't prevent an eventual choice to remain in the single market, so it's not really very significant in the wider scheme of things.
Thanks for this.

Where we end up is the focus of the Labour leadership on outcomes rather than structures, as Gardiner says. Leaving the Single Market and Customs Union does not necessarily mean a Hard Brexit. It's not what I want BTW, but I think Labour's policy is coherent and quite distinct from the shockingly hard Hard Brexit Davis seems to be leading us towards.
SpinningHugo
Prime Minister
Posts: 4211
Joined: Mon 16 Feb, 2015 1:22 pm

Re: Wednesday 22nd November 2017

Post by SpinningHugo »

Willow

I did answer it on my blog months ago.

https://spinninghugo.wordpress.com/2017 ... awal-bill/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It makes no sense to have different human rights regimes applicable to different parts of UK law post Brexit based on historical source.
HindleA
Prime Minister
Posts: 27400
Joined: Tue 26 Aug, 2014 12:40 am
Location: Three quarters way to hell

Re: Wednesday 22nd November 2017

Post by HindleA »

"Hammond to exempt Police Scotland and Scottish Fire Service from VAT"
User avatar
citizenJA
Prime Minister
Posts: 20648
Joined: Thu 11 Sep, 2014 12:22 pm

Re: Wednesday 22nd November 2017

Post by citizenJA »

I don’t understand Jo Maugham’s tweet posted above
SpinningHugo
Prime Minister
Posts: 4211
Joined: Mon 16 Feb, 2015 1:22 pm

Re: Wednesday 22nd November 2017

Post by SpinningHugo »

I do love Labour's claim to be focused on outcomes not structures. It is very amusing. it is like Corbyn's suggestion that his solution in Syria is peace.

The structures give you the outcomes. If you want to damage UK jobs and prosperity, leave the structures. Just willing the good outcomes isn't an answer at all.

It is a joke.
PorFavor
Prime Minister
Posts: 15167
Joined: Tue 26 Aug, 2014 12:18 pm

Re: Wednesday 22nd November 2017

Post by PorFavor »

Whatever Philip Hammond announces today, Britain’s public sector faces hefty spending cuts over the next few years.

That’s due to austerity measures announced since 2010, as our colleague Alan Travis explains:

The Institute of Fiscal Studies says that existing plans mean that there will be a further £12bn cut in welfare spending by 2020/21, that the NHS will face its tightest funding period since the 1950s and that prisons will see a real-terms cut of 22%, followed by a tight settlement for the next two years.
(Politics Live, Guardian)
PaulfromYorkshire
Site Admin
Posts: 8329
Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 7:27 pm

Re: Wednesday 22nd November 2017

Post by PaulfromYorkshire »

SpinningHugo wrote:I do love Labour's claim to be focused on outcomes not structures. It is very amusing. it is like Corbyn's suggestion that his solution in Syria is peace.

The structures give you the outcomes. If you want to damage UK jobs and prosperity, leave the structures. Just willing the good outcomes isn't an answer at all.

It is a joke.
The solution is dialogue. The outcome is peace.

The analogy may be surprisingly good.
SpinningHugo
Prime Minister
Posts: 4211
Joined: Mon 16 Feb, 2015 1:22 pm

Re: Wednesday 22nd November 2017

Post by SpinningHugo »

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:I do love Labour's claim to be focused on outcomes not structures. It is very amusing. it is like Corbyn's suggestion that his solution in Syria is peace.

The structures give you the outcomes. If you want to damage UK jobs and prosperity, leave the structures. Just willing the good outcomes isn't an answer at all.

It is a joke.
The solution is dialogue. The outcome is peace.

The analogy may be surprisingly good.
I thought you'd like it.

I, of course, think it an insult to my intelligence.

"What is your solution to problem X?"

"My solution is for it to go away."

It is the kind of idiocy Trump gets away with. For believers only.
PaulfromYorkshire
Site Admin
Posts: 8329
Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 7:27 pm

Re: Wednesday 22nd November 2017

Post by PaulfromYorkshire »

Incidentally, and before we get overtaken by the budget, I do hope that the totally amazing people of Zimbabwe are richly rewarded for their extraordinarily extended, but peaceful, opposition to Mugabe's autocracy with a bright and beautiful future for their nation.

There must be some worries about the intervention of the army last week. Fingers firmly crossed for them.
tinybgoat
Speaker of the House
Posts: 2231
Joined: Mon 23 Feb, 2015 8:23 am

Re: Wednesday 22nd November 2017

Post by tinybgoat »

citizenJA wrote:I don’t understand Jo Maugham’s tweet posted above
His Twitter feed's pretty busy & worth a read (lawyers seem to have a lot of time on their hands)
I think basically the tweets a summary of previous tweets, in response to
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ain-europe" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I campaigned to stay in the EU, but as a democratic politician, I have to recognise that these objectives provide the benchmarks by which leave voters will judge the future trade relations we negotiate with the EU. Unless the new agreement delivers these objectives in substantial measure, we will find it difficult to justify the final result to the 52% who voted leave
Gardiner seems to be assuming the 52% all voted for the same set of reasons, as a homogenous block.
In his defence, he only says it will be difficult to justify, going against their supposed wishes, not impossible.
edit: suspect you already know most of that ;)
Last edited by tinybgoat on Wed 22 Nov, 2017 11:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
SpinningHugo
Prime Minister
Posts: 4211
Joined: Mon 16 Feb, 2015 1:22 pm

Re: Wednesday 22nd November 2017

Post by SpinningHugo »

tinybgoat wrote:
citizenJA wrote:I don’t understand Jo Maugham’s tweet posted above
His Twitter feed's pretty busy & worth a read (lawyers seem to have a lot of time on their hands)
I think basically the tweets a summary of previous tweets, in response to
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ain-europe" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I campaigned to stay in the EU, but as a democratic politician, I have to recognise that these objectives provide the benchmarks by which leave voters will judge the future trade relations we negotiate with the EU. Unless the new agreement delivers these objectives in substantial measure, we will find it difficult to justify the final result to the 52% who voted leave
Gardiner seems to be assuming the 52% all voted for the same set of reasons, as a homogenous block.
In his defence, he only says it will be difficult to justify, going against their supposed wishes, not impossible.
ie the same argument May uses for going for Hard Brexit.
tinybgoat
Speaker of the House
Posts: 2231
Joined: Mon 23 Feb, 2015 8:23 am

Re: Wednesday 22nd November 2017

Post by tinybgoat »

SpinningHugo wrote:
tinybgoat wrote:
citizenJA wrote:I don’t understand Jo Maugham’s tweet posted above
His Twitter feed's pretty busy & worth a read (lawyers seem to have a lot of time on their hands)
I think basically the tweets a summary of previous tweets, in response to
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ain-europe" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I campaigned to stay in the EU, but as a democratic politician, I have to recognise that these objectives provide the benchmarks by which leave voters will judge the future trade relations we negotiate with the EU. Unless the new agreement delivers these objectives in substantial measure, we will find it difficult to justify the final result to the 52% who voted leave
Gardiner seems to be assuming the 52% all voted for the same set of reasons, as a homogenous block.
In his defence, he only says it will be difficult to justify, going against their supposed wishes, not impossible.
ie the same argument May uses for going for Hard Brexit.
Not really, no.
HindleA
Prime Minister
Posts: 27400
Joined: Tue 26 Aug, 2014 12:40 am
Location: Three quarters way to hell

Re: Wednesday 22nd November 2017

Post by HindleA »

Stirred me to re-watch my/our video from our time in Zimbabwe.I am terrified of heights but the helicopter over Victoria Falls and multiple rainbows effect etc is a forever memory.
User avatar
citizenJA
Prime Minister
Posts: 20648
Joined: Thu 11 Sep, 2014 12:22 pm

Re: Wednesday 22nd November 2017

Post by citizenJA »

@tinybgoat
You're very good, thank you for your post.
User avatar
Willow904
Prime Minister
Posts: 7220
Joined: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 2:40 pm

Re: Wednesday 22nd November 2017

Post by Willow904 »

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
Willow904 wrote:
frog222 wrote: In his Guardian article Barry Gardiner proved (I think?) that the CU and EEA routes are impossible, therefore the "bespoke deal" is the way forward .

I'm not making a book on that one, tho perhaps not completely impossible given the economic costs to the closest EU members ! :-)
He didn't "prove" anything. He made huge, unevidenced assumptions about what all 52% of leave voters want and expect and proceeded to explain why remaining in the single market and Customs Union might not fulfil those expectations. This both ignores what remain voters might want and expect and ignores what leave voters might want and expect when the trade offs are made fully apparent. Labour should be helping the electorate make an informed choice by making those trade offs clear, not helping the hard Brexiters by only pointing out the negatives of continued single market membership and never talking about the positives. The emphasis we get from Corbyn on how it's "impossible" to stay in the single market when we leave the EU, is denying the electorate the right to decide for themselves whether or not it is desirable. Corbyn and Gardiner are entitled to say it's undesirable or that some leave voters may feel disappointed if we don't leave the SM but they're not entitled to say it's impossible (it's not) and they're not entitled to say it would go against the wishes of all 52% of leave voters if we stayed in the SM. We simply don't know that. These are the arguments that people who want a hard Brexit would make. They are far too presumptious and misleading to fairly reflect a desire to represent the democratic wishes and best interests of the electorate as a whole.

If you read Gardiner's article, you can maybe see why it's hard for anyone who wants to remain in the single market to feel like Labour are on their side.
https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ain-europe" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Having said that, Murray's amendment wasn't especially well conceived. It could have caused issues if there's no deal and the opposition has no control over that, so voting against it could be construed as pragmatism. It wasn't going to win Tory rebel support, and voting against it doesn't prevent an eventual choice to remain in the single market, so it's not really very significant in the wider scheme of things.
Thanks for this.

Where we end up is the focus of the Labour leadership on outcomes rather than structures, as Gardiner says. Leaving the Single Market and Customs Union does not necessarily mean a Hard Brexit. It's not what I want BTW, but I think Labour's policy is coherent and quite distinct from the shockingly hard Hard Brexit Davis seems to be leading us towards.
The single market isn't really a structure, though, is it? It's just a description of a market where there are no barriers to free movement because everyone follows the same rules, so no bureaucracy, no customs, no border controls are necessary. The only way to enjoy all the economic benefits is to follow all the rules. If we don't want to follow some rules we can negotiate a bespoke arrangement, of course, but it will confer inferior economic benefit. What advantage do we win in exchange for this negative? The ability to reduce immigration? I don't have a problem with European immigration. The ability to reduce environmental or workers protections? I don't really want that either. Nothing Corbyn proposed in the last Labour manifesto is restricted by single market membership. I can see the advantage of leaving the single market for xenophobes and right wingers like Rees-Mogg. But what's the advantage that adequately compensates for a big economic hit, for the rest of us? If there isn't an advantage in leaving, then why not campaign for and try to persuade people to stay in?
"Fall seven times, get up eight" - Japanese proverb
SpinningHugo
Prime Minister
Posts: 4211
Joined: Mon 16 Feb, 2015 1:22 pm

Re: Wednesday 22nd November 2017

Post by SpinningHugo »

Good to see Mladic at last brought to justice.

So great that the peace in Bosnia and Kosovo, and the bringing to justice of those guilty of slaughter, was achieved through Jeremy Corbyn's preferred method of a dialogue between all sides giving us peace.
SpinningHugo
Prime Minister
Posts: 4211
Joined: Mon 16 Feb, 2015 1:22 pm

Re: Wednesday 22nd November 2017

Post by SpinningHugo »

tinybgoat wrote:[
Not really, no.

How does it differ?
tinybgoat
Speaker of the House
Posts: 2231
Joined: Mon 23 Feb, 2015 8:23 am

Re: Wednesday 22nd November 2017

Post by tinybgoat »

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... are_btn_tw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The Electoral Commission must urgently and robustly investigate the question of whether or not the ‘will of the people’ was bought
User avatar
Willow904
Prime Minister
Posts: 7220
Joined: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 2:40 pm

Re: Wednesday 22nd November 2017

Post by Willow904 »

Quite apart from anything else, Labour won't be able to argue that the Tories made the wrong decision in taking us out of the single market if they advocate the same course.

And they won't be able to advocate rejoining the single market at future elections without looking like hypocrites.
"Fall seven times, get up eight" - Japanese proverb
User avatar
citizenJA
Prime Minister
Posts: 20648
Joined: Thu 11 Sep, 2014 12:22 pm

Re: Wednesday 22nd November 2017

Post by citizenJA »

Willow904 wrote:Quite apart from anything else, Labour won't be able to argue that the Tories made the wrong decision in taking us out of the single market if they advocate the same course.

And they won't be able to advocate rejoining the single market at future elections without looking like hypocrites.
I think there's more than meets the eye going on here at present
I know I love the well-being of people and country more than any political party
I'm sorry I've no greater reassurance for you and others regarding Labour's current role in Parliament
gilsey
Prime Minister
Posts: 6175
Joined: Thu 28 Aug, 2014 10:51 am

Re: Wednesday 22nd November 2017

Post by gilsey »

PorFavor wrote:
Whatever Philip Hammond announces today, Britain’s public sector faces hefty spending cuts over the next few years.

That’s due to austerity measures announced since 2010, as our colleague Alan Travis explains:

The Institute of Fiscal Studies says that existing plans mean that there will be a further £12bn cut in welfare spending by 2020/21, that the NHS will face its tightest funding period since the 1950s and that prisons will see a real-terms cut of 22%, followed by a tight settlement for the next two years.
(Politics Live, Guardian)
There are 2 things Hammond could do.
a) Nothing, to all intents and purposes, which is what he will do.
b) Rip all that stuff up, along with the scheduled tax reductions, and start again with a blank sheet of paper.
One world, like it or not - John Martyn
User avatar
Willow904
Prime Minister
Posts: 7220
Joined: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 2:40 pm

Re: Wednesday 22nd November 2017

Post by Willow904 »

Of course, what Jeremy Corbyn and Barry Gardiner really think only matters if the Tory rebels grow a pair.

So probably not worth wasting time over.

Meanwhile, what are the chances Philip Hammond has a few decent budget measures for ordinary people that then get savaged and promptly overturned by the right wing press?
"Fall seven times, get up eight" - Japanese proverb
User avatar
citizenJA
Prime Minister
Posts: 20648
Joined: Thu 11 Sep, 2014 12:22 pm

Re: Wednesday 22nd November 2017

Post by citizenJA »

Peter Walker is probably my favourite journalist, overall. I like him personally. He's a great advocate for safer roads for pedestrians and people on bikes.

edited to add some context, however slight, to my words above
I was moved to write this based upon one of his contributions on the Politics live blog below
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/li ... 0708ebb988" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Last edited by citizenJA on Wed 22 Nov, 2017 12:12 pm, edited 2 times in total.
SpinningHugo
Prime Minister
Posts: 4211
Joined: Mon 16 Feb, 2015 1:22 pm

Re: Wednesday 22nd November 2017

Post by SpinningHugo »

Willow904 wrote:Of course, what Jeremy Corbyn and Barry Gardiner really think only matters if the Tory rebels grow a pair.

So probably not worth wasting time over.

Meanwhile, what are the chances Philip Hammond has a few decent budget measures for ordinary people that then get savaged and promptly overturned by the right wing press?

Why would they grow a pair when they know the opposition won't back them?

Labour needed to be a counterweight to Hard Brexit. Instead, it backed it.
gilsey
Prime Minister
Posts: 6175
Joined: Thu 28 Aug, 2014 10:51 am

Re: Wednesday 22nd November 2017

Post by gilsey »

From AS blog
Anushka Asthana
Shelter have some interesting research that shows why Philip Hammond really need to think about policies on housing- and not just home owners but renters too.

In 2010, the Conservative party was ahead by a few points among people living in the private rented sector, but in 2015 Labour had a lead of just over 10 points with that group - and by 2017 it was well over 20 points. That rises to over 30 for the social rented sector. The Tory lead has even been squeezed to just a few points for those with mortgages.
The figures also shows that the Tories’ support dropped most dramatically in English marginals with the highest proportion of renting households.

It also shows that groups labelled as “young JAMs and liberal youth” consider housing to be one of the issues they care most about, with the vast majority thinking the situation is getting worse and worse.
One world, like it or not - John Martyn
AnatolyKasparov
Prime Minister
Posts: 15626
Joined: Mon 25 Aug, 2014 9:26 pm

Re: Wednesday 22nd November 2017

Post by AnatolyKasparov »

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Congratulations Angela Rayner :-)
At the age of just 37 - not as common as it used to be!
"IS TONTY BLAIR BEHIND THIS???!!!!111???!!!"
Locked